At some point Greenpeace needs to realize that by man being on this planet, we are destroying it. Can we and should we mitigate this? Obviously, but man, do we have to go this far? I mean what about the amount of water that we consume, and the damage that causes (one liter of milk takes 1000L of water, and one 300g steak takes more water than the average person uses in showering for a year).

solvents, glues, tannin, meat, fuel....

chase the issues that are resolvable, and educate about the rest. Save the Riverine rabbit, Rhinos and other species- like you have done in the past, but realise that Earth will outlast man

smityb wrote:I wonder what the greenpeace workers wear when they do field trips to places such as those mentioned...

Hemp and grass with wooden clogs

Odd one to target. I'm not surprised the clothing industry produces some bad chemicals, but I suspect they are a (literal) drop in the ocean compared to pollutants from chemical industry, plastic manufacture, "technology" production, oil and gas processing and a hundred other industries around the world.

My waterproofs are well over 5 years old, and if you buy quality and look after them there is no need to replace them too often. My driving to wherever every time I go climbing must have a much worse environmental impact.

Old Smelly wrote:I suppose Patagonia would escape GP's attack as they are very responsible about the environment

Not so - from article.

Greenpeace said it had tested 14 rain jackets and rain trousers for women and children from top brands such as Jack Wolfskin, Vaude, North Face, Marmot, Patagonia and Adidas for PFCs and found that each sample was contaminated

So I would imagine that they would not advise you throw away your existing jackets...even if they do make you sterile... not always a bad thing...

Back to the original question,

do F A & Cape St*rm have responsible operations in SA & do they manufacture with nature friendly materials? What of their products made in the East/ wherever?

As mentioned previously maybe the desire for low cost comes before the environment...someone else was being all pc about how their down is collected...possibly a drop in the ocean compared to all the nylon we wear...

maybe bamboo & hemp clothes are the solution (with some wool thrown into the mix)...I see a great marketing opportunity here...

Wonder which does more damage: the Ski Jacket or the flights to Switzerland?

may I reiterate what was said above: by existing you consume and damage. if we were using bamboo or hemp we would then need large farms to produce it, which would then reduce local habitats of plants and animals, plus we still would need to convert the raw material to fibers which would involve chemicals.....

I agree that Greenpeace is preaching to the choir, why not attack PET bottled cokes? the answer is boring. yes, boring, less sensational, more common and far harder to resolve. I mean why demand that everyone drink out of glass 500ml bottles rather than PET? that would involve consumer information drives rather than squaring blame on one user group in a big publicity stunt. I emailed Greenpeace RSA regarding PET after emailing ABI, Penbev and Woolworths regarding the matter, interestingly Penbev and ABI are keen for it as its cheaper for them, which means cheaper for retailers (who then can increase margins) and still offer end users a cheap product. the reason why we haven't had a removal of PET bottles is customer demand, not supplier capacity.

As I said earlier, I agree it's an odd one to target, compared to motor industry for example. Maybe they see "us" as a target audience that may be persuadable and having an environmental conscience of some sort, as opposed to other industries which are regarded as a dead loss.

At least Patagonia appear to make an effort. "Let my people go surfing" is a worthwhile read, part for their history, part for their philosophies.